It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What's going on in Copernicus crater?

page: 10
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by arianna
 


what is your source for said artwork?


Is there a reason you are asking for the source of the artwork?
edit on 18-12-2011 by arianna because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



please stop arguing with me about this if you don't want the info out there, because this
will just escalate and i don't want to end up in gitmo for looking at pics and saying, :"hey this looks like
a levelled grade with structures on it."


But I do want the info out there! People need to learn how to interpret photographs properly. I promise you you will not end up in Gitmo for not being able to understand perspective. Happy holidays to you, too.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 



Is there a reason you are asking for the source of the artwork?


Because nobody here believes its actually artwork. You have just turned the original picture sideways in the hopes we'd be fooled into thinking there were faces in it. Sheesh!



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Anatomy of impact crater such as Copernicus crater on the surface of the Moon.


Figure 4.5 The internal structure of a hypothetical impact crater is shown in this cross section. Note particularly the raised rim of the crater, the lens of impact breccia (and impact melt) that floors the crater, the ejecta blanket, which adds to the height of the crater rim, and the deformation of preexisting rocks. Rocks in the target are both folded and extensively fractured. Terraces form as slices of rock drop along steep faults into the interior of the crater.



" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


Impact crater on the far side


Figure 4.11 The lunar crater King illustrates many of the features of impact craters larger than 20 km in diameter. King, about 75 km in diameter and about 4 km deep, is on the far side of the Moon, west of Mendeleev. Among its interesting features are its atypical horseshoe-shaped central peak. Central peaks are common in craters of this size. King crater also has terraced walls that descend to a relatively broad, flat floor. A smooth puddle of solidified impact melt lies above the peak; another large accumulation of impact melt lies outside the crater on its north rim. These pools were fed by lobes of melt that drained into local depressions.


source: sources: source: explanet.info...

Makes sense to me as to the ledges and so called grades in a crater.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by dcmb1409
 


not buying it. i recognize there's activity on the moon. some may be very old, some may be new, some may be ET, i don't know how much is human related, if any. but if some day we find out they have human slaves up there, things are gonna get messy in a hurry.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


no, you only want your version of the info out there. and that's why i'm telling you to cease and desist, because this could get much worse and last time it got worse, we ended up with a huge influx of people of questionable origin, who were out for john lear's blood. and they got it too. i've been a member here for 5 years, and i don't want to ruin that. nor, have this escalate out of control. do us all a favor and just state what you think it is and why, reduce the incidences of referring to people who see things as lacking in intelligence, and the character assassination has got to stop, now, before it gets out of control
edit on 18-12-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



no, you only want your version of the info out there. and that's why i'm telling you to cease and desist, because this could get much worse and last time it got worse, we ended up with a huge influx of people of questionable origin, who were out for john lear's blood. and they got it too. i've been a member here for 5 years, and i don't want to ruin that. nor, have this escalate out of control. do us all a favor and just state what you think it is and why, reduce the incidences of referring to people who see things as lacking in intelligence, and the character assassination has got to stop, now, before it gets out of control


Odd, it almost sounds as though you're the one who only wants his version out there. Where do I refer to anyone lacking intelligence? Where do I attempt character assassination? The simple fact of the matter is that your "plateaus" are an illusion caused by perspective. That's why you can "see" them when the photograph is taken from an extremely oblique angle, but not from a vertical angle. I'd draw you a picture but I don't have the graphic software capacity for that. If you can indicate on one of the vertical photos where this "plateaus" are supposed to be, it would clear things up instantly.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


You mean like this miner?




And as for perspective how do you perceive this?

Is it a floating factory or do we have one at the Moon also?




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
ArMaP, Did you have a look at the animation I posted on page 8?
Yes.


Do you see the figures in the animation?
Not really, but I see why you may see them.


Are you saying the artwork that contains the figures is a photographic copy of a lunar scene?
Yes.

Image 1 is the one you posted, rotated 90º clockwise, image 2 is this image, resized to 55%.


edit on 18/12/2011 by ArMaP because: bad quote tags




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Here is a photo taken from a different angle under different lighting conditions with a camera that did not have three levels of potential error


With all due respect, I don't believe that is a fair comparison. That's like comparing the smoothness of apple skin to the divots on an orange peel. What I'd like to see is a single high-resolution photo of the exact composition and lighting of the original Copernicus photo that we have been examining, without "pieces of dust, scratches and scan lines". Only then will you have an apples-to-apples comparison.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dcmb1409



www.astropix.com...




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 


Lol, good image. The one in my post was the ISS caught in a telescope when it passed in front of the moon as a backdrop. The miner was an Apollo astronaut. Its all how you perceive images.
edit on 18-12-2011 by dcmb1409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by undo
 



no, you only want your version of the info out there. and that's why i'm telling you to cease and desist, because this could get much worse and last time it got worse, we ended up with a huge influx of people of questionable origin, who were out for john lear's blood. and they got it too. i've been a member here for 5 years, and i don't want to ruin that. nor, have this escalate out of control. do us all a favor and just state what you think it is and why, reduce the incidences of referring to people who see things as lacking in intelligence, and the character assassination has got to stop, now, before it gets out of control


Odd, it almost sounds as though you're the one who only wants his version out there. Where do I refer to anyone lacking intelligence? Where do I attempt character assassination? The simple fact of the matter is that your "plateaus" are an illusion caused by perspective. That's why you can "see" them when the photograph is taken from an extremely oblique angle, but not from a vertical angle. I'd draw you a picture but I don't have the graphic software capacity for that. If you can indicate on one of the vertical photos where this "plateaus" are supposed to be, it would clear things up instantly.



they are on the wall of the crater, and i can see them from the overhead too. and from the overhead, they are still at an angle, because they are on the crater wall, not on the crater floor. i merely stated what i THINK it is. whereas your little crew of debunkers, seem to think your word is from on high, and that you have the professional capacity to tell me that what my eyes show me is an illusion. i have more images, more, lots more. some of them are very hard to debunk. i'm not posting them because it will ESCALATE THIS FIASCO. somebody will get booted off ats, and somebody else will take all the work in this thread, turn it into a product and sell it for good money, and not give any credit or profits, to the people who worked so hard to present it and suffered thru the endless character assassinations and various other hardships. just leave it the hell alone.

i ain't a glutton for punishment.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by dcmb1409
 


present your data or take a hike.
ATS isn't, "come poke fun at the people who have eyes"


edit on 18-12-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Check this out if you think everything (moon structures etc.) is just image - photo pixilation problems:

Here is the url link to the video as well.

www.youtube.com...
edit on 18-12-2011 by thetiler because: had to take out the embed link, because it didn't work



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123
An "anomaly" is something where i would take a look, and then say "Woooo.....WAIT A MINUTE..."


Actually, an "anomaly" is an "inconsistency". In the case of the original Copernicus crater photo, the inconsistency is in areas of the terrain. It doesn't take much time to look at an area to see these inconsistencies and say, "Woooo.....WAIT A MINUTE..."

For example:




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I've presented and presented data, still waiting on yours. A hike sounds like a good idea, need the exercise after that meal.

If you want more data it is here:

explanet.info...

and it wasn't poking fun, it was a matter of perception and what some claim to see.
edit on 18-12-2011 by dcmb1409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


You were the one with the boast not to challenge you but it seems YOU are the one that wont take it up you say you have better stuff well post it.

I would really love to see some real evidence and as I have said to rdunk and others on here if you post something thats the real deal I WILL BACK IT TO THE HILT!!!

The thing is that when you have people that dont REALLY undestand how photography/digital imaging works it ends up being a joke so as I said before undo DO YOUR WORST you claim youv'e got good stuff well post it or shut it one or the other!

It seems all you want is a bunch of mutal back slappers what a boring place this would be then would probably be like the living moon for instance



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dcmb1409
I've presented and presented data, still waiting on yours. A hike sounds like a good idea, need the exercise after that meal.

If you want more data it is here:

explanet.info...


i don't think it's as sinister as some people believe, but the kind of debunking you're engaging in suggests it may actually be worse than i originally assumed. attempts at belittling me and others for having the ability to see and rationalize, is not about denying ignorance, it's about bullying people into silence by employing that age old tactic of group humiliation. since when has that kind of behavior ever denied ignorance? as far as i know, you're the problem not the solution, at least, at this juncture.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by undo
 


You were the one with the boast not to challenge you but it seems YOU are the one that wont take it up you say you have better stuff well post it.

I would really love to see some real evidence and as I have said to rdunk and others on here if you post something thats the real deal I WILL BACK IT TO THE HILT!!!

The thing is that when you have people that dont REALLY undestand how photography/digital imaging works it ends up being a joke so as I said before undo DO YOUR WORST you claim youv'e got good stuff well post it or shut it one or the other!

It seems all you want is a bunch of mutal back slappers what a boring place this would be then would probably be like the living moon for instance


i'm warning you. it's fair warning. what, are you that jerk that took all our data and made a hefty profit off it and now you're back trying to drum up more material to cash in on?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join